|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2014 19:28:04 GMT -5
The bottom line is: What will be done about climate change? The answer is, nothing. First of all, government actions so far have been totally inept, such as that "gasahol" disaster a few years back. Food production dropped because farmers were growing crops that could be turned into alcohol. That led to food riots in several poor countries. The final irony was that gasohol production, it turned out, put more CO2 into the atmosphere than regular fuel oil.
A second and more important that nothing will be done is all the solutions we know of at this time would lower the standard of living and people don't like to be poor. This is from today's Christian Science Monitor:
Even if some sort of law is passed here, that won't affect China, India, and other Third World nations who plan to keep industrializing.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 10, 2014 20:21:38 GMT -5
It's actually very funny reading posts and articles by people earnestly discussing something that doesn't exist. Like Jesuits arguing over the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. The self-evident fact that there isn't actually any warming and or climate change doesn't deter you one bit. You are true believers for no other reason than you've been told to believe by "authorities". Are there any skeptics or critical thinkers here at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 20:46:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess it's easier just to deny or ignore facts, such as that C02 is making the oceans more acidic. And, guess what, you won't be around to have to face you were wrong. So you're off scot free. It's only the folks of the future that's going to suffer, and who cares.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 10, 2014 21:25:27 GMT -5
You can't "deny" facts that aren't true. I don't "deny" the existence of the Tooth Fairy. It's nonsensical to say that someone "denies" the existence of something for which there isn't a shred of scientific proof. That's the tactic warmists use, and it's a kind of fascism. During the Witch Trials - in which up to 100,000 women were burned to death - it was against the law to deny the existence of witches. In fact the whole global warming/climate change thing has a lot in common with the Witch Trials. When I first read about the witch trials I was amazed at how stupid and illogical people could be, and at how hysteria could blind people to the obvious. But now, with "climate change", I am seeing exactly the same kind of idiocy and hysteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 21:31:18 GMT -5
There are facts that you just deny. I already pointed one out, and you choose to deny it. Simple as that. Of course you can think what you like, but if you're going say it, then I just feel like I can be just as defensive as you are being. Doesn't mean a hill of beans, really.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2014 21:34:02 GMT -5
It's actually very funny reading posts and articles by people earnestly discussing something that doesn't exist. Like Jesuits arguing over the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. The self-evident fact that there isn't actually any warming and or climate change doesn't deter you one bit. You are true believers for no other reason than you've been told to believe by "authorities". Are there any skeptics or critical thinkers here at all? My post isn't about global warming. It is about the fact that nothing is going to be done. Personally, I think that a major cause of warming is hot air coming from politicians. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 10, 2014 21:50:35 GMT -5
The sun gives off a fair bit of heat too, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2014 22:05:44 GMT -5
The sun gives off a fair bit of heat too, apparently. Then maybe the Sun will be entering politics soon. Bob
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Mar 10, 2014 23:27:55 GMT -5
I agree with Neil, & I think he is one of humanity's most fabulous people. And he is a good scientist too!
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Mar 10, 2014 23:30:49 GMT -5
I agree with Neil, & I think he is one of humanity's most fabulous people. And he is a real good scientist too, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 11, 2014 0:36:05 GMT -5
I have no idea how good a scientist he is, but even the best scientists can be wrong. And he's wrong on this issue.
And this is becoming really tiresome. "Climate change" is baloney. 100% bullcrap. Anyone who believes in it because they've been told to believe in it is a zombie; and anyone who believes in it after examining the evidence is a moron.
Sixteen years ago I had an argument with a friend of mine (we were both members of Greenpeace) about "global warming". I told him it was baloney, but he bought into it hook, line and sinker, and became a "global warming warrior" (roll eyes). He was outraged by what he saw as my "complacent" (later, when they wanted to make an association between skeptics and holocaust deniers, "denialist") attitude. According to him - and all warmists at the time - environmental Armageddon was imminent. The polar ice was about to melt, with disastrous consequences. The polar bear would become extinct. Ocean levels would rise, causing tidal waves and submerging Pacific islands. There would be no more snow. This was all going to happen within the next five to ten years if we didn't drastically reduce our carbon emissions. I told him none of that was going to happen. He told me I was in denial. "Time will tell," he said. "Yes, it will," I replied. And I guarantee you that if we're still here in 20 years - not 10 - none of these things will have happened." "We'll see," he said. "Assuming we haven't all been submerged by a tidal wave."
Well, time DID tell. It's 16 years later - four fifths of the way to the 20 - and NOT ONE of the predicted catastrophes has happened, or looks any more likely to happen than it did 16 years ago. There has been no warming. Global ice levels are normal. The polar bear is thriving. No islands have disappeared under the sea. Snow is as plentiful as it ever was. The climate is PERFECTLY NORMAL.
EVERY SINGLE PREDICTION made by the IPCC failed to materialize. Every single prediction made by Al Gore failed to materialize. Why anyone would give credence to these liars is beyond me.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL, not a scientific institution. It was set up by Margaret Thatcher when she was trying to promote nuclear energy (and ironically, she admitted shortly before she died that she thought the theory was nonsense). The scientists who submit papers to the IPCC are in receipt of generous government grants - as long as they continue to produce evidence supporting the theory. Why would anyone believe a scientist whose livelihood is dependent on obtaining certain results? It reminds me of Hitler's scientists, who found compelling scientific evidence that people with fair hair and blue eyes were physically and intellectually superior to people with dark skin and brown eyes.
You can find evidence to support any theory that you set out to find proof of. This is the classic error of selecting evidence to support your hypothesis, instead of looking at all the evidence objectively and seeing where it leads you. This is bad science. Add the money motive, and it becomes real bad science.
OF COURSE climate scientists are coming up with evidence for "climate change". If they don't, their generous grants will dry up, and they'll go back to being science's most underfunded branch of research. Before the IPCC was founded, climate scientists found it almost impossible to get government grants. And then, suddenly, they were being given huge amounts of money to find evidence supporting the theory that human CO2 was causing the temperature to rise. What were they going to do - refuse to take the money? Take it and find no evidence to support the warming theory? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Mar 11, 2014 9:43:57 GMT -5
I agree with Neil, & I think he is one of humanity's most fabulous people. Not being an expert, I have to go with the scientist Neil here.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 11, 2014 9:56:17 GMT -5
If you're going to believe something because a scientist believes it, well, thousands of highly qualified and eminent scientists reject "climate change" as junk science. So in fact you are choosing to accept the opinion of a particular scientist (with no qualifications in climate science) over the opinion of many other scientists (with qualifications in climate science) who reject "climate change" as nonsense. Interesting logic.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Mar 11, 2014 20:03:24 GMT -5
How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused by Donald Prothero www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/This is a Skeptic Magazine weekly “eSkeptic” from a couple years ago. Scroll down past the first couple items. Just guessing here, but I suppose Zak will disagree with all of it and continue to deny that there’s a problem. In my view, there is no point in talking to him about it, as I said several years ago when Paul Hayward and Bob Marks were discussing this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 11, 2014 20:27:00 GMT -5
When the opening paragraph an article refers to skeptics as "deniers" (a term deliberately chosen to equate global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers) and slanders a named individual by calling him "a notorious global warming denier", then you can be 100% sure that the writer of that article lacks both integrity and objectivity. This article is trash.
I don't "deny" that there's a problem. I don't believe that there's a problem. And the reason I don't believe that there's a problem is because there is no evidence that there's a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 20:30:11 GMT -5
How do you call somebody who denies global warming?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 11, 2014 20:31:38 GMT -5
How do you call somebody who doesn't believe in Santa Claus. A Santa Claus denier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 20:41:02 GMT -5
Are you evading the question because you can't answer, or because you don't want to?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 11, 2014 21:05:34 GMT -5
I answered the question. Can't you read? A person who doesn't believe something for which no convincing evidence exists is called a skeptic. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. I don't believe in creationism. And I don't believe that the 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere that humans produce has, is or will cause the global temperature to rise. What's more I think this would be a good thing if it did happen.
So if you want to call me a global warming denier, then you should also call me a Santa Claus denier, a Tooth Fairy denier, a creationist denier etc.
And as I said, the term "denier" was chosen for its connotations with Holocaust denial, and as such it is an offensive and insulting term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:34:44 GMT -5
I answered the question. Can't you read? A person who doesn't believe something for which no convincing evidence exists is called a skeptic. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. I don't believe in creationism. And I don't believe that the 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere that humans produce has, is or will cause the global temperature to rise. What's more I think this would be a good thing if it did happen. "No convincing evidence" merely means that you don't believe in the evidence that already exists. Much like, say, a creationist doesn't believe in the evidence that exists for evolution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:35:22 GMT -5
Have you ever considered applying the same scrutiny to your own sources, though? You keep harping on the supposed moneyed interests in the climate change debate, yet you consistently ignore or deny the very real and factual moneyed interests behind global warming denial.
It's the same with your anti-vaxxer nonsense, where you consistently ignore or deny the existence of evidence that demonstrates how groups of people who have not been vaccinated are significantly and consistently more likely to catch a disease than people who aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 12, 2014 9:46:42 GMT -5
Or much like, say, an intelligent person doesn't believe the evidence for the Flat Earth Theory.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 12, 2014 9:49:48 GMT -5
Well, the funny thing is that people always say that, but when I challenge them to show me that evidence, they're never able to. That's because no such evidence exists. If you think I'm wrong, post it here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:59:28 GMT -5
I've posted several such cases on the old boards and you ignored them. How likely is it that if I post them again it's going to be any different? You're doing this same spiel every single time, again and again, like a broken clock.
As you said yourself, you simply don't believe in the evidence for certain things.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 12, 2014 10:52:19 GMT -5
I have NEVER not responded to evidence, so you are making that up.
And of course I don't believe in the evidence for certain things. I don't believe in the evidence for BigFoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Uri Geller's metal-bending skills, Joseph Smith's gold plates, Unicorns, controlled demolitions in the WTC towers, fairies, Jesus's resurrection from the dead, homeopathy, flying saucers.... the end is listless. In short, I only give credence to evidence that makes sense, adds up, is consistent with the known laws of physics etc. The fact that something is widely accepted isn't evidence of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 13:26:49 GMT -5
I have NEVER not responded to evidence, so you are making that up. Right. You can't remember something, so evidently it doesn't exist. QED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 13:28:28 GMT -5
In short, I only give credence to evidence that makes sense, adds up, is consistent with the known laws of physics etc. And yet you believe that you have superpowers.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 19, 2014 14:40:34 GMT -5
I have a very good memory. Almost photographic. And since I've been challenging people (including doctors, virologists, epidemiologists etc) to provide evidence supporting vaccination for well over 20 years, I think I'd remember if one of them was able to do so. But if you believe you posted evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccination, please post it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:39:12 GMT -5
I have a very good memory. Almost photographic. And since I've been challenging people (including doctors, virologists, epidemiologists etc) to provide evidence supporting vaccination for well over 20 years, I think I'd remember if one of them was able to do so. But if you believe you posted evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccination, please post it again. Are you actually advising everyone to not get vaccinated for anything?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 19, 2014 16:01:57 GMT -5
Here's what I'm saying, just to be clear. Mass vaccination against infectious diseases doesn't work. By "doesn't work" I mean it doesn't save any lives. The mortality rates are proof of this. There is no evidence whatsoever - and I've scoured the literature for years - of a vaccination program ever resulting in a reduction in the number of fatalities from an infectious disease. Vaccination programs don't work AT ALL. And that's because they are based on the idea of infections as "static" entities, like toxins. But epidemics are actually socially-responsive, a kind of collective auto-immune response. An epidemic is, in effect, a living thing. Infectious diseases have a natural lifespan. They become weaker over time. Look at AIDS. In the beginning, the mortality rate was 100%. A person was diagnosed with the disease, and six months later they were dead. Over time, the incubation period increased - from 2 years to 3, then 5, then 10 etc - and survival rates after diagnosis increased. And this happened BEFORE antiviral drugs became available (and it applied to those who opted not to take antivirals). Or look at the history of epidemics. Black Death was never cured. Why didn't it wipe out the population of the world? It still exists today, but it doesn't spread. The strength and virulence of epidemic diseases always follows a curve. And mass vaccination is only ever made available at the END of that curve, when the disease is no longer lethal. If you look at the fatality rate for ANY infectious disease, you will see that there is zero decline before and after the introduction of vaccination. That's a simple fact that's easy to verify. Look at the official CDC stats. I posted them here years ago. Vaccination does not result in fewer deaths for any infectious disease, period.
|
|